Lead Designer
|
I take a little issue with this sentiment. There were a number of us expressing apprehension about this back in August and the response was "Wait until the playtest amd you see what we are doing". Now, our apprehensions are confirmed, and it is too late to do anything about it. There will have to be major changes in the design for this (and I will collect my thoughts and opinions on each class over the weekend) before I could get on board with them.
I understand your concerns here. Ultimately it is my job to guide the line going forward and that is not something that can be accomplished in a committee of thousands (its hard enough in a committee of 10-20 Paizo staffers). Unfortunately, my design decisions are not going to be the best for all gamers in all games. I know that, and I dont really think anyone would disagree with that. The best I can do is guide the line in a way that keeps the game viable and fun for years into the future.
There is a side issue here concerning multiclassing and prestige classes that I think I will address in a new thread this afternoon to prevent this one from being derailed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.
I can see that many folks are surprised by this approach, and as a result, disappointed in the results.
This isn't what I'm reading here, and it certainly isn't my complaint. What I see is people saying that they find many of these classes to be unimaginative and lazy hybrids, because they were expecting something unique and flavorful like the magus.
If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive, then this playtest is for your.Well, here's the problem. The suggestion from many here is to make these classes unique, instead of copy and pasting half the abilities from class A and half from class B and adding in a secondary "extra" mechanic. What's the focus, the theme, the niche, of some of these classes? What defining attribute does it have that no one else has, or doesn't have in the same way? What makes it special? It's surprising to me that this is even an issue, given past work like the magus and the sorcerer (which was a bland and flavorless class in 3e, and absolutely is not in PF).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a playtest is supposed to be, but I don't see how playtesters are going to change any of the above. We can ensure that the language is clear, catch typos, and identify the mechanical concerns. We can't make the content less boring or superfluous.
I guess the thing would be to list what could make X hybrid class more interesting to use, or ways to flesh out or retool subsystems. A developer can't really work with "it's boring", because that doesn't tell him anything about how "WHY" you find it boring or how to make it less boring (especially since boring is pretty subjective). If you loath the idea of hybrid classes, I am not sure what to say. Paizo isn't going to scrap the book because certain people dislike it. That would mean scrapping their Gencon release which would I would hazard severely hurt the company
I would rather see the Prestige Classes done then other combinations. But use the base classes as inspiration instead of sources for the abilities.
I very much hope the playtest results will help guide you out of the unnecessarily rigid box you've put yourselves in so the final product with the tweaked and enhanced classes will be far more than just "a mix of this and that"--but truly spectacular, memorable classes we will one day think of as wondering how we played the game without them before.Thanks for a well reasoned response. I am not convinced everyone shares your opinion, but I think you make a solid point.
That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.
We will be working on these as we go along. The entire point of this post, as I mentioned before, was to give people an idea as to where our heads are in this process and where we go from here. Relying on assumption and hearsay is a problem with the playtest process as a whole and I constantly endeavor to keep this process open and transparent.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
So far I really like five classes (Bloodrager, Brawler, Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler), am okay with two others (Shaman, Hunter), lukewarm with two (Arcanist, Skald) and only really dislike one: The Warpriest.
Why this relates to your post? Because I think that in the pursuit of creating a Fighter/Cleric hybrid, you guys overlooked that you already made that class and, worse, made it way better: The Inquisitor. The Warpriest seems inferior in almost every way to the Inquisitor (less damage, way less skill points, worse spell list, less crazy good class features), so I think that the class needs an overhaul to distinguish itself somehow from the other three divine frontliners (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor) and especially the momentarily really better Inquisitor. Maybe reworking it to be a non-LG Paladin would really work better and make far more people happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'd like to wag my finger at the naysayers of hybrids and say that I'm excited to test out a number of them. No, not because they have new and unique mechanics, but because they combine them in ways I've been trying to combine them previously and failed.
Slayer? Yes, full BAB and over half SA progression sounds awesome. Just give me enough extras to justify it.
Investigator? Why yes, I'd love to play a trapfinder who is still a functional skill monkey, but doesn't suffer the rogue's utter lack of versatility by means of having extracts. I won't even miss that last SA die.
Brawler? Yeah, full BAB unarmed attacker sounds fun. Not powerful, but really fun.
Arcanist? You want to give me the best parts of both wizards and sorcerers? Dude, yes.
I like these concepts, and the stated (and apparent) goals of the concepts. The novel combinations of old and familiar core mechanics are all I need to be excited to play these guys.
People keep holding up the Magus as an example of the ideal hybrid, and yeah, it'd be awesome to get a book of 10 classes like that, I don't disagree. But this book of 10 less ambitious classes is also awesome because it lets me do things I couldn't before, or do them better. The simple changes can still be profound. For those who've been around a while, I'm sure you'll remember that if you had a dollar for every old 3.5 netbuild on the old forums that included levels of Thug (aka Sneak Attack Fighter), you could buy a pizza for every person unhappy with the hybrids.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a few points:
* As other have pointed out, the game already had hybrid classes, in some cases for going on 30+ years. Paladins, rangers, bards, etc are all hybrids of the basic fantasy gaming tropes that make up the core class selection.
* More granular hybrids like these are really superfluous in a game with a robust and interesting multiclass system. If 3.0 had not vastly simplified multiclassing, I might be a bit more enthusiastic about these new hybrids.
* While some of the hybrid classes are thematically interesting (though mechanically boring), most of them are just sort of obvious and unnecessary. Did we really need a sorcerer/wizard? Of all the original classes, those two are the most similar already. Aren't there enough variations on the holy warrior theme? Did we really need a new take on the fighter/cleric? Most of the rest of them have already been covered with various archetypes, like the martial artist and vivisectionist. Why didn't we stretch our wings a little and try combining classes that would produce much more interesting and unique hybrids? Why not a bard/ranger based on Kokopelli? Cleric/monk reminiscent of Mr. Miagi? Paladin/druid styled like Tecumseh?
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.
|
|
I think a lot of people need to take a step back from the pitchforks and work on being a little more constructive...
These fall a bit short of the Magus currently, yes - but the Magus is a launched and working product.
These are playtests. You can't just do an apples to apples comparison, there's still loads of bugs to work out in how these classes play... that's the purpose of the playtest.
Regurgitating the same complaints as everyone else, without at least sitting down, statting a character up, and rolling through a few-hours long dungeon scrape, doesn't add anything of value... At least try it before you make a judgment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
* More granular hybrids like these are really superfluous in a game with a robust and interesting multiclass system. If 3.0 had not vastly simplified multiclassing, I might be a bit more enthusiastic about these new hybrids.
Except for, ya know, in a game where your multiclassed character isn't as strong as a single classed one of equal level...
|
|
I think a lot of people need to take a step back from the pitchforks and work on being a little more constructive...
These fall a bit short of the Magus currently, yes - but the Magus is a launched and working product.
These are playtests. You can't just do an apples to apples comparison, there's still loads of bugs to work out in how these classes play... that's the purpose of the playtest.
Regurgitating the same complaints as everyone else, without at least sitting down, statting a character up, and rolling through a few-hours long dungeon scrape, doesn't add anything of value... At least try it before you make a judgment.
I did last night, what reaction was I supposed to have? Well whatever it was supposed to be, it ended being a feeling of incompleteness like only half of the class was there.
|
|
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.
Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.
The intent of this one has always been mix/hybrid classes that are more or less glorified "multiclass" classes, and I feel that they delivered on that pretty well so far. We'll see what changes by the end of the playtest.
|
Except for, ya know, in a game where your multiclassed character isn't as strong as a single classed one of equal level...* More granular hybrids like these are really superfluous in a game with a robust and interesting multiclass system. If 3.0 had not vastly simplified multiclassing, I might be a bit more enthusiastic about these new hybrids.
You don't multiclass for more power, you multiclass for either versatility or to emphasize one aspect. I will save my full opinion on that for Jason's thread when he opens it. These hybrid classes are less hybrid and more glorified archetypes..
That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.
We will be working on these as we go along. The entire point of this post, as I mentioned before, was to give people an idea as to where our heads are in this process and where we go from here. Relying on assumption and hearsay is a problem with the playtest process as a whole and I constantly endeavor to keep this process open and transparent.
Thank you for this post (and your other recent posts in this thread); it gave me back some of the excitement I had for these classes prior to the playtest. Knowing that the "parent-reliance" can be revisited/reduced if necessary makes it more interesting to participate.
Well, onto a more in-depth reading (and then hopefully some playing) of the playtest classes :)
|
|
Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.
That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?
That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?
They're actually pretty interesting, considering the fact that people have been crossclassing for years and this gives people the chance to experiment with a hybrid that takes out the need for crossclassing in general. Some of these hybrids are based on very popular crossclassing options that a lot of people gravitate toward.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.
To be far some people find them interesting. I don't, but some do. Here's the trick, how do you change the classes just enough to please people like you and me, while keeping the content people happy. Now add into the mix that the developers themselves already put time and effort into the construction of the new classes, and in a very short window of time need to fix the flaws in them. Ultimately you and I are not getting what we want, we'll have to settle on a compromise.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.
I am sorry you feel that way. The design team does not agree. While some of the classes might not be "there" yet in terms of their mechanics and expressions, I think many of them do represent an interesting conceptual niche for us to explore. This does not preclude other classes in future products.
Many of these are concepts that cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, which is not a subsystem that can be revised without pulling apart a number of core assumptions in the system. The hybrid classes allow us to explore these concepts in a cleaner, more user friendly way. I realize you want something else instead, but that is not really the point of this playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
|
Jason, the concern is that this isn't words of piwer, where if it falls flat we can pretend it neverhppened (like we do with WoP). This is ten new base classes which will need to be supported in the future of the game, and they look rather detrimental to PFrpg's long term health. You are experimenting with radioactive material. Failure has greater consequences than other rules experiments.
|
|
That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.
* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.I am sorry you feel that way. The design team does not agree. While some of the classes might not be "there" yet in terms of their mechanics and expressions, I think many of them do represent an interesting conceptual niche for us to explore. This does not preclude other classes in future products.
Many of these are concepts that cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, which is not a subsystem that can be revised without pulling apart a number of core assumptions in the system. The hybrid classes allow us to explore these concepts in a cleaner, more user friendly way. I realize you want something else instead, but that is not really the point of this playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thanks for the quick reply. I wasn't trying to sound antagonistic or anything, and I'm always careful to temper my feedback with suggestions instead of just complaining. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "uninteresting."
It's interesting that you say many of the hybrids cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, yet each one is specifically called out as being the love child of two existing classes and, as you said in an earlier post, often includes "cut and pasted" features from each. :)
Anyway, all snarkiness aside, I still look forward to playtesting these classes.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, the concern is that this isn't words of piwer, where if it falls flat we can pretend it neverhppened (like we do with WoP). This is ten new base classes which will need to be supported in the future of the game, and they look rather detrimental to PFrpg's long term health. You are experimenting with radioactive material. Failure has greater consequences than other rules experiments.
Thats a bit reactionary and holds many echoes to comments made in just about every playtest to date. These are a work in progress. They will improve throughout the playtest and beyond and they make their way through the development and edit cycles. No one at Paizo understands the impact of rules like these on the game better than me, and I certainly understand the stakes. I suggest we return to the topic at hand as opposed to forecasts of doom.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I am a little unsure if this is the right place for this question, as the discussion seems to have moved to whether the overall approach of the designers is the way to proceed, rather than how we define the party/role playing function of the hybrid class concept. I am not trying to suggest that people shouldn't be heard with constructive criticism, but I was hoping for a discussion of class features intrinsic to party composition and how we see them integrated into the class. For example, since the Slayer is a rogue/ranger hybrid, I feel that it desperately needs trap finding, in order to best serve it's party role, and this ability is essential to a rogue hybrid class. Maybe there is a variant ability to integrate, giving new mechanics and flavor, but it would be great to discuss these mechanical issues globally, before tackling the classes individually.
|
Lead Designer
|
It's interesting that you say many of the hybrids cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, yet each one is specifically called out as being the love child of two existing classes and, as you said in an earlier post, often includes "cut and pasted" features from each. :)
Thats exactly why they exist. The multiclassing rules do not permit these concepts to be fully expressed and the hybrids are attempting to do them justice. Using features from the parents is part of that experimentation. We are evaluating its effectiveness and decided where to push that line going forward.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
|
Jason, the concern is that this isn't words of piwer, where if it falls flat we can pretend it neverhppened (like we do with WoP). This is ten new base classes which will need to be supported in the future of the game, and they look rather detrimental to PFrpg's long term health. You are experimenting with radioactive material. Failure has greater consequences than other rules experiments.Thats a bit reactionary and holds many echoes to comments made in just about every playtest to date. These are a work in progress. They will improve throughout the playtest and beyond and they make their way through the development and edit cycles. No one at Paizo understands the impact of rules like these on the game better than me, and I certainly understand the stakes. I suggest we return to the topic at hand as opposed to forecasts of doom.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I think it can be done well, depending how married you guys are to some of these. A few just need a little tinkering (Hunter, Bloodrager), some a total revamp (Skald, Investigator) and some need to be cut completely and replaced with something else (Arcanist, Warpriest).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting that you say many of the hybrids cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, yet each one is specifically called out as being the love child of two existing classes and, as you said in an earlier post, often includes "cut and pasted" features from each. :)Thats exactly why they exist. The multiclassing rules do not permit these concepts to be fully expressed and the hybrids are attempting to do them justice. Using features from the parents is part of that experimentation. We are evaluating its effectiveness and decided where to push that line going forward.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I totally understand and agree with your assertion that multiclassing doesn't quite get at the heart of these concepts. But I don't think a hybrid system does either.
Swashbucklers are an intrinsic part of fantasy cinema and literature, from Cyrano to Sparrow. Shoehorning them into Pathfinder as an archetype or hybrid class doesn't quite do them justice. The same goes for many of the others, like the skald and shaman.
I'm glad to hear that you're still evaluating where to go from here, so if it matters at all, put my vote in the category labeled "some of these classes are unnecessary, but the rest of them are genuinely great ideas that are interesting enough to warrant their own systems and unique abilities."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it can be done well, depending how married you guys are to some of these. A few just need a little tinkering (Hunter, Bloodrager), some a total revamp (Skald, Investigator) and some need to be cut completely and replaced with something else (Arcanist, Warpriest).
Maybe on the Arcanist, but I wouldn't cut the warpriest, It really should have had full BAB and d10 hps, but otherwise some minor tinkering could give a surprisingly good class.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You can think of the magus (from Ultimate Magic) as our first test of this concept. It takes some rules from the fighter, some rules from the wizard, and then adds its own unique mechanics."
Please don't add mechanics just to add mechanics. Many of us like the classes, there is a ton of commentary to that effect in the various threads for each class.
As you know, adding mechanics invariably enters into the world of unintended consequences. For all the talk of the magus...I don't see it listed as one of the most played classes in survey's I've noticed.
I think it is telling that as of the time of this post in the "Most Popular class" thread it got zero favorites.
Zero.
If there is a need to add a mechanic to achieve a design goal, by all means do it.
But the key word is need.
I like most of the new classes. I would say 6 are really good, 2 have potential, and 2 are either not for me or need a lot of work in my opinion.
But none of these classes appear to be as problematic as the Summoner or have mechanics that will require multiple FAQ entries like the Magus.
My favorite non-core class is the Inquisitor. These classes remind me of the inquisitor.
They saw a gap and filled it. There is now a full BaB martial arcane options. Awesome.
There is a Spontaneous arcane caster that can change spells each day. Awesome.
There is a full BaB unarmed Manuever class. Awesome.
There are better rogue than rogue options. Since rogue got 6 favorites to the Magus's zero, people having more rogue like class is really awesome.
So please don't do anything rash. Many of us think this is a good job that just needs tinkering and the exact right approach to take.
I suggest we return to the topic at hand as opposed to forecasts of doom.
Reading through this thread I'm reminded of the scene from Life of Brian with the prophets. For what it's worth I'm enjoying reading through the new classes and sketching out how to implement a few of my existing ideas with them. Then again, I'm the weird guy who really digs the cavalier so take my compliments with a grain or five of salt.
|
|
I suggest we return to the topic at hand as opposed to forecasts of doom.Reading through this thread I'm reminded of the scene from Life of Brian with the prophets. For what it's worth I'm enjoying reading through the new classes and sketching out how to implement a few of my existing ideas them. Then again, I'm the weird guy who really digs the cavalier so take my compliments with a grain or five of salt.
Cavalier got 3 votes :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this experiment has shown that as a whole these are fairly interesting concepts but the execution isn't right for Pathfinder.
The Warpriest feels like it would be better served as Archetypes built around adding to another already existing Archetype, The Crusader. Blessings could be introduced as an addition to the Domains and Inquisitions.
The Arcanist should probably be used to inspire a new Variant Magic System.
Some would probably work better as just an Alternate of a single class rather than a Hybrid.
The Brawler could just be a variant of the Monk. Though probably better to be called the Pugilist.
The Bloodrager could be to the Barbarian what the Ninja is to the Rogue. It uses the basic features of the Base Class but adds in its own unique options. The Bloodrage Powers could be used for a new type of Rage Power Tree (Bloodline Powers) akin to how the Totem Powers work. They could be open for the Barbarian while the Bloodrager gets them as class feature for free and sooner.
NOTE: I liked the thought of Words of Power even if they needed work.
TL;DR: Basically I think the Hybrids should use the Theme and Fluff of their parent classes but have more unique abilities while using only 1 or 2 of the currently existing Major Class Features (Rage, Favored Enemy, Bombs, Sneak Attack, Et Cetera).
|
Lead Designer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, to be clear, nothing rash is on the agenda. I am just trying to clean up some misconceptions and move things along. There will be tinkering. There will be replacements of some mechanics. There will not be any complete revamps or reworkings. We wont be replacing any of the classes at this point. That ship has long sailed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
Lead Designer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we were not going to change anything, we would not bother to playtest. We do this to make the classes better. I am not sure why folks seem to think otherwise. Every playtest we have done to date has resulted in very significant changes to the final product.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
|
We all just need to keep our minds open, my fear is by requesting changes the satisfied among us will backlash. I want a good book, just like all of you, don't look at my personal gripes as counter productive. And for people like me, who are less then happy, you'd be surprised on how a lot of little changes can renew ones viewpoint. I think Jason is being sensible, let see all of these reworkings first, and then more calmly discus where we go from there. Remember time is not on Jason's side.
|
|
Oh, to be clear, nothing rash is on the agenda. I am just trying to clean up some misconceptions and move things along. There will be tinkering. There will be replacements of some mechanics. There will not be any complete revamps or reworkings. We wont be replacing any of the classes at this point. That ship has long sailed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Unfortunate, since a couple simply fill zero place in the game (Arcanist) or have already been well covered (Warpriest). Instead of the Fighter/Cleric of Warpriest a Monk/Cleric that used ki healing amd such woukd be fantastic.
While other classes simply do not fit their fluff. The Investigator reads more like Jack the Ripper than Sherlock Holmes with all that poison and sneak attacks. A Gunslinger/Inquisitor blend would make for a much more appropriate Inquisitor.
Arcanist though, is just one mechanic (Spirit Shaman spellcasting from 3.5) but with nothing else going for it. The blood focus is wonky and flavorless. It would be better used as a Wizard variant. Instead maybe a Rogue/Wizard hybrid as the Arcanist (along the lines of 3.5's Beguiler).
That is what I mean by complete revamps, if that sort of thing is off the table, my opinion of the playtest and this book will drop dramatically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for, ya know, in a game where your multiclassed character isn't as strong as a single classed one of equal level...* More granular hybrids like these are really superfluous in a game with a robust and interesting multiclass system. If 3.0 had not vastly simplified multiclassing, I might be a bit more enthusiastic about these new hybrids.
It would have been a lot more interesting to solve that problem, IMO.
While I don't mind the hybrid class ideas(even if the Brawler screams a little too "Who needs Monks ever!?" to me), one type of class I would really kill for is a copycat caster, similar to the Blue Mage from Final Fantasy, albeit tweaked a bit to fit Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry you feel that way. The design team does not agree. While some of the classes might not be "there" yet in terms of their mechanics and expressions, I think many of them do represent an interesting conceptual niche for us to explore.
OK, so to sum them up and give some constructive feedback.
Tier 1. Definitely a solid concept here - take a step back, look at them, and modify them even more to hit the actual concept, not being hobbled by the components of the hybridized classes.
- Shaman - Nice. Don't even call them "hexes" and it's reskinned even better. Call them 'totem powers' or something.
- Investigator - a great concept, need to file off poison use and scrub the inspirations list to be more Johnny Depp-like.
- Swashbuckler - everyone wants one! Even though we have several, none of them quite scratch the itch.
All three of these are iconic out of the gate. You know what a shaman, investigator, and swashbuckler are from lore and lit.
Tier 2. There's a concept there but it needs teasing out.
- Hunter - This could be a good "pet class" similar to the WoW hunter; the Summoner was almost that but got too weird and had too many powers otherwise. Animal Focus has too many options, tie it to their companion or something. Any power where you get to choose between 12 things at invocation time is a PITA (yes including inquisitor judgements). I'd also like to see a specific spell list so it's not "all druid stuff," focus on buffing self and critter and not controlling the weather or whatnot. Then make the companion a little stronger - not eidolon psycho strong but strong enough that you can realistically send them into combat at L12 and not get them filleted in a round. Since the slayer is a hunter this one might should be beastmaster or something (also so as to not get sued by WoW :-)
- Skald - Somewhat the same deal as bloodrager. Spell Kenning is a fine power but completely unrelated to the flavor here. I like it's singing and not messing around with 3 weird instruments like a bard.
Tier 3. Not enough concept or space here to make it meaningful without a big addition.
- Bloodrager - this one I don't get, with the slow spell progression it seems like it's not really more than a barbarian/sorcerer multiclass. I guess the full BAB. Seems like you may as well just have said "to fix multiclassing, you can choose one level dependent thing, like BAB or spell progression or singy power or sneak attack dice, and take the full one you like off one of your component classes! Done."
- Arcanist - there's no flavor to this that a wizard doesn't have. Replacing the wizard with it sure, but it needs something significant and new to not just be a duplicate with more min/max potential.
- Brawler - besides being the long awaited "Monk with full BAB" it exists in a super narrow space between fighter(brawler) and monk - not much of an interesting remaining space. And its flavor is different from neither in practice. Remove brawler strike and monk weapons, go heavier on the actual brawler weapons (cesti etc.) - in the end it's just a fighter archetype with Rapid Shot on their hands, it's not really classworthy.
- Warpriest - you mean like a paladin and an inquisitor? But not as interesting? I'm not sure how to make this unique in this super crowded space (clerics can often be better fighters than fighters anyway...)
- Slayer - you mean like an assassin? Don't mind the mechanics but there's no new design space here at all. Save for PF 2.0 Assassin.
|
|
If we were not going to change anything, we would not bother to playtest. We do this to make the classes better. I am not sure why folks seem to think otherwise. Every playtest we have done to date has resulted in very significant changes to the final product.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This is fantastic to hear; I'm glad Paizo has such an open-minded approach to game development.
In the future, however, I hope you fully embrace the freedom you have to create new and truly unique material, more along the lines of the classes from the APG.
This Advanced Class Guide, however, feels more like a band putting out a greatest hits album. At the end of the day, your fans are going to buy it, sure, but in their hearts you know they were hoping for some new songs.
Look, hybriding 2 classes can work, but in the end, it mustn't feel like an alternate way to multiclass. It has to be better.
Why is the magus better than just a fighter/wizard? Because it offers more features to make it unique, like the Spellstrike. Sure, it doesn't provide anything as good as a pure fighter or wizard, but on its own, it works.
The main problem with multiclassing is that your abilities simply stop progressing. A fighter/wizard doesn't get better Armor/Weapon Training or better spells. It just stalls. I would have understood if multiclassing allowed you to level up both classes at a lower rate, like a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would be the same as a Fighter 15/Wizard 15, but in the end, you're just weaker than the rest.
A hybrid is technically made to counter that problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just figured I'd note that the opinions of us vocal folks on a forum don't represent all, or even a majority of players. Honestly, groups that seem extremely vocal in a small community often seem to turn out to hold minority opinions among the larger populous.
The Arcanist is one of the most interesting ones I'm seeing, reading through these comments. Mostly because this thread seems to bear near-universal hatred for it, whereas every Pathfinder player I've talked to today--both in real life and on forums other than these--has been hyping the Arcanist as one of the best and most interesting of these new classes. It's a bit jarring to see how massive the difference of opinion can be between fans of the same game, but it happens.
Personally I'm looking forwards to the Arcanist most of all these classes. (People say it brings nothing new, but the prepared spontaneous casting IS the new that it brings. It's really interesting-looking.)
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, I really disagree with Jason on this one, but since the book is already laid out and likely mostly written, the designers are not going to go back to the scratch on some of the class abilities. Hopefully the'll keep this in mind, new stuff is cool too. Balance isn't everything.
To be clear about something, the book is not even remotely "already laid out." The PLAYTEST DOCUMENT, which is to say the ROUGH DRAFT of these classes is laid out, but that's a completely different animal than the book itself.
When _that_ process begins, several months from now, it will begin from scratch as an entirely different document. The fact that our art team spent a day dropping the text without art into a design template has no relationship whatsoever to the final book.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that the inclusion of these 10 classes is pretty much set in stone, but I hope that this playtest results in some very substantial changes to a lot of them, unlike many recent playtests which were 90% of the way to completion when released.
The classes themselves are unlikely to change. The book will have 10 hybrid classes, roughly similar (if not quite similar) to the presentation in the playtest document.
That said, Paizo is committed to a full, interactive playtest for these classes. The book is far, far, far from 90% complete. We are making every effort to take player comments to heart, and many changes will be made to the classes based on feedback during the playtest.
Our last playtest received valid criticisms about the amount of hands-on designer involvement and communication. We are committed to making sure that this is NOT the case with this playtest. I think you can see by the interaction Jason and his team have brought to this effort that they are committed to reading comments, responding frequently, and making changes if necessary.